Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
A detailed analysis of the bandhua mukti morcha v. Uoi case, a landmark judgment in indian labor law. It explores the legal issues surrounding bonded labor, the application of relevant legislation, and the supreme court's role in protecting fundamental rights. The case study provides insights into the complexities of labor exploitation, the judiciary's role in upholding human rights, and the importance of public interest litigation in india.
Typology: Summaries
1 / 9
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
(^1) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI, (1984) 3 SCC 161. (^2) 20010126154@symlaw.ac.in
Service) Act, 1979 apply to the stone quarry labor force? Does the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 apply to the workers employed in stone quarries? Whether the Supreme Court can appoint an investigative body or commission to review claims and produce a report based on the investigation results, in order to exercise its authority and jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution?
Article 32 Mines Act 1952, Inter-State Migrant workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976 Minimum Wages Act 1948.
The practice of forced labour is an egregious and abhorrent violation of constitutional principles and a direct affront to basic human dignity. The primary objective of enacting the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of 1976^3 was to proscribe the physical and economic exploitation of susceptible sectors of the population. Stone quarries are subject to the regulations delineated in the Mines Act of 19524 on account of their non-compliance with the conditions specified in the proviso. The workers employed in the stone quarries are governed by the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979^5. This is due to the fact that the mine lessees and (^3) The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, No. 19, Acts of Parliament, 1976 (India). (^4) The Mines Act, 1952, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 1952 (India). (^5) The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, No. 30, Acts of Parliament, 1979 (India).
proprietors of the stone crushers, who are principal employers in this particular instance, are subject to the Act. Stone quarry employees have been subject to the Minimum Wages Act of 1948 6 since its nationwide implementation on October 25, 1975. DISPOSITION Pursuant to Article 32^7 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to appoint an investigative agency or commission to scrutinize the accusations and present a report to the court. A report of this nature would facilitate the Court in exercising its authority and jurisdiction. The Court issued a directive instructing the State Governments to give priority to the rehabilitation of indentured labor and to devise effective programs to accomplish this goal. The Central Government and the Government of Haryana were required to ensure that the children and/or women responsible for maintaining the containers used for storing the labor force's drinking water are paid the minimum wage. Shri Laxmi Dhar Misra was required to do the assigned assignment and deliver his report to the Court by February 28, 1984. The State of Haryana was instructed to make a payment of Rs 5, within a period of two weeks from the date of the ruling, in order to compensate the costs and personal expenses of Shri Laxmi Dhar Misra. In addition, the Court ordered the inspecting officers of Central Enforcement Machinery to carry out surprise inspections to confirm that the vehicles were not overloaded beyond their calculated capacity. ANALYSIS The Court unequivocally confirms the degree of power bestowed upon a legislature in order to preserve a system of checks and balances. In addition to possessing the power to enact legislation, a legislature is obligated to ensure that those laws are adequately implemented. The insufficiency of legislative oversight and examination regarding the implementation of the Mines Act and Inter-State Migrants Act resulted in substantial worker exploitation and human rights violations. Paragraph 9 on page 165 of the court's decision unequivocally states that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) does not serve as a vehicle to criticize the government or assert its dominion over the legislative and executive branches. Public interest litigation is instigated with the purpose of protecting and ensuring the ongoing safeguarding of citizens' fundamental rights. Undoubtedly, this situation provides the government with an opportunity to reevaluate the legislation it has passed, (^6) The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, No. 11, Acts of Parliament, 1948 (India). (^7) INDIA CONST. art. 32, amended by The Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023.
Ascertaining whether the establishment of a 'Committee' would supplant established authority, the court reviewed the regulations specified in the Supreme Court Rules and the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 6 of Order 47 of the Supreme Court rules states that Order 46 lacks the authority to revoke the inherent commission-appointing authority of the Supreme Court. Under Article 32 of the Constitution, if it is necessary to guarantee the enforcement of a fundamental right, the Supreme Court may appoint a commission.^8 Participation in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the judiciary is distinguished by its proactive approach, innovative thinking, and optimistic disposition. This litigation does not involve adversaries; instead, it seeks to protect the fundamental rights of a broader collective. Despite this, it is worthwhile to contemplate whether it is feasible to petition a particular judge for their opinion on a particular subject via letter. To what extent does an individual's financial and social disadvantages justify their ability to choose a legal venue and judge as ethically justifiable? Doesn't this run counter to the fundamental principle that people should not have the authority to choose their own judge? The Bandhua Mukti Morcha case unequivocally determined that direct correspondence with a specific judge is not authorized. This statement is susceptible to varying points of view. On one hand, it is in opposition to the principles upheld by the Judiciary. Is that action morally justifiable to perform? This subject is discussed in the article. A distinguished judge delivered a lecture entitled "Judiciary: Attacks and Survival" at Symbiosis Law School in 1982. During the lecture, the judge articulated the perspective that allowing a complainant to choose their own forum or judge undermines the integrity of the judicial process, as it contradicts the principle that no litigant should be able to select their own forum. Treated three Due to their extremely poor incomes and lack of knowledge, the same parties may concurrently face substantial barriers when attempting to initiate legal proceedings directly in the Supreme Court. In his address at a law school titled "Judicial Activism in India," Justice P.N. Bhagwathi introduced the concept of "epistolary jurisdiction." This concept pertains to the process of submitting a writ petition to the Court through the medium of correspondence. There are established criteria that must be met in order to invoke this jurisdiction. It is recommended that the letter be drafted on behalf of the economically disadvantaged parties who are unable to afford court appearances and legal (^8) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors , AIR 1984 SCC 802, Para 14.
proceedings. Therefore, it is imperative to maintain a state of equilibrium when confronted with such situations when making decisions, in my opinion. Unavoidably, every specific case is accompanied by its own set of facts and circumstances. The essence of 'judicial activism' is undermined when analysis is reduced to a single viewpoint, which not only results in injustice but also undermines it. In the contemporary digital era of India, electronic complaint submission is now feasible. It is essential, in light of the technological explosion and the fact that more than 700 million individuals own cell phones, to furnish them with explicit guidelines regarding the process of lodging a complaint. Social media is presently assuming a pivotal function in drawing attention to these types of incidents. Nonetheless, due to the fact that a considerable number of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) are of a trivial nature in the present day, caution must be exercised. In addition to consuming the Court's valuable time, these PILs tarnish the PIL system's reputation. Ensuring that justice ultimately prevails, both the litigants and the judicial system ought to be unaffected in the process.
The Bandhua Mukti Morcha Case was a pivotal moment in Indian history, since it instilled citizens with a genuine understanding of public interest litigation. The Bandhua Mukti Morcha, a non- governmental organization, deserves praise for its exceptional efforts in advocating for the marginalized inhabitants of India. The representation helped draw the Judiciary's attention to the deplorable conditions experienced by the numerous indentured servants whose most basic rights have been infringed. Given the dire circumstances experienced by workers who were completely deprived of basic access to legal recourse, the Judiciary has generously eased all prerequisites for initiating a lawsuit or seeking redress from the Supreme Court. This action was undertaken to advance the cause of justice. Public Interest Litigation functions as a potent tool for the Judiciary to directly engage with society and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. It is extremely flexible, and although there is no set format technique mentioned, it should follow the basic principles and philosophy of the judiciary.
